text:
PA/APV Glidepath Descent and Obstacle Clearance Slope's lowest point determination
I am studying the US Terminal Instrument Procedures manual (TERPS) and as I was skimming through the guidelines about Sloping Obstacle Clearance Surface, I came across the image below from section 2-1-4 (the red circle remark is mine):

The problem is, I can not understand how the lowest point of the OCS, which I have marked with the red circle, is determined. It seems to be a point close to Departure End of Runway (DER), but where exactly?
The only things TERPS states is:

Descending on a PA/APV glidepath. The obstacle evaluation method for descent on a glidepath is the application of a descending OCS below the glidepath. The vertical distance between the glidepath and the OCS is the ROC; thus ROC = (glidepath height) - (OCS height). The ROC decreases with distance from the precise final approach fix (PFAF) as the OCS and glidepath are converging towards the landing surface (see figure 2-1-3). The OCS slope and glidepath angle (GPA) values are interdependent:  OCS Slope = 102/GPA; or GPA = 102/OCS slope.

Could someone point me in the right direction?
EDIT: What I mean is, why (and how do I calculate the extra distance) does the first image apply, rather than the second?

I can't yet find where this is indicated in TERPS, but it appears that the OCS surface starts at the point before the threshold where the GP is 250 feet above the threshold height.
I'm inferring that from this document about calculating VNAV criteria.

It has the above diagram and says:

The distance from the runway threshold where the OCS surface starts
  (Section 1) is defined by the formula D = (250-HATh)/.052407779

where HATh is the same as TCH, which is a standard 50', and the number .05240779 is the tangent of 3°. So far I'm unable to reference that back to any TERPS definition, but maybe you can find it.
There's an interesting article discussing how TCH is defined over at Code7700.com

Thank you for your answer. I will edit my question in order to make it clearer. As far as I have understood, actually the GPA is based on the OCS and not the other way around, but in any case I am having trouble figuring out why the OCS does not start at the Departure End of Runway (DER), rather at an arbitrary distance from it.

See Formula 10-2-2, "Slope Origin Distance," and Figure 10-2-3. The distance is equal to 200 feet or
$$ 1154 - \frac{\rm TCH}{\tan({\rm GPA})} $$
feet, whichever is greater.

The probable reason why the obstacle clearance surface line is shown terminating prior to the threshold is because the glide slope transmitter antennas are located about 50 feet in front of the threshold.
When a plane lands using instruments, it uses what is called the "instrument landing system" (ILS), and nearly all commercial airports have them. The ILS transmits guidance signals to the aircraft through an array of antennas. Some of those antennas, including the glide slope antenna, are generally located about 50 feet in front of the threshold.
As a side note, this is one reason why it is bad to have to land short, because if you do, then your plane will plow through all those antennas.

You've got the wrong antennas in the wrong place.  The glide slope antenna is a tower about 500-700 feet past the threshold (just prior to the touchdown zone) and 100-150 feet off to the side.  The localizer antenna array is off the end of the runway at the far end.  So if you're landing over a localizer antenna, it's for the other end of the runway or you're flying a LOC back course approach.  And realistically, the bigger obstacles in that zone are the approach lighting towers.


text:
Need help to clarify the terms "arrival", "departure", "approach", "terminal" and "transition" fix for US STAR and SIDS
I find it a bit difficult to clarify, while consulting the US published STAR and SID published charts, which fixes are designated as arrival, departure, approach, terminal and transition.
Could somebody point out the aforementioned distinctions or any source that would help clarify these terms? I have gone through the FAA's Aeronautical Chart User's Guide but I was unable to discern the subtleties of each definition.

Could you provide some places where those terms are used, for context?

I've never heard of a fix being specified as "arrival," "departure," etc. There are initial, intermediate and final approach fixes. But those are on approach plates, not STARs or SIDs. The only types I've heard of on STARs are reporting and non-reporting fixes

We can't really answer specific questions about materials that aren't publicly available.

At first it seemed logical to me that these were more common terms, but probably I was wrong. My bad.

I am not an FAA controller or instrument rated but since you don't have an answer yet I will give it a shot.  If someone has a better answer please post:
Arrival:  IFR routes that start at radius about 30-50 NM from the airport.  This is where airplanes usually start their descent.  This can be controlled by en route or TRACON ATC.
Approach:  An IFR route that outlines a particular approach to the runway.  There are RNAV (GPS), VOR, and ILS approaches that are provided for an airport's runways.  You would file an approach during your IFR flight plan but could be modified by ATC as needed.  This is handled via ATC by approach control.
Terminal:  The area handled by a TRACON (for busy airports).
Departure:  Your IFR route filed when you depart from the runway.  This is handled via ATC by Departure.
Transition:  I am not so sure on this but I think this relates to going from arrival to approach.

A standard arrival procedure (STAR) will have multiple entry fixes (called "transitions" because that's where you transition from the en route phase to the terminal phase) that converge on a single fix for which the STAR is named, usually with one or more (optional) holds along the way that ATC can use to maintain separation.  There may be more shared fixes or radar vectors after the convergence point to various IAPs.  This phase is typically handled by approach control (APP), but it will be done by Center in areas without a TRACON.  Note that there will usually be multiple STARs for a given airport depending on the direction you're coming from, and typically one complete set uses RNAV and another uses VORs.
Each instrument approach procedure (IAP) covers how to get to a particular runway with a certain kind of equipment; there is usually more than one IAP for a given runway, and some IAPs cover multiple runways.  Regardless, once you're established on the IAP, APP (or Center) will hand you to TWR, or to CTAF if there is no TWR.
A departure procedure (DP, formerly SID) is roughly the same process in reverse: TWR hands you off to departure control (DEP), which takes you from the runway (via radar vectors or specific fixes) to a common fix and then out to diverging transition fixes, and then you're handed off to Center for en route flight.  Like STARs, there is usually one set using RNAV and another using VORs.
The point of all this complexity is to safely manage a large number of aircraft, possibly flying in IMC in relatively close proximity to each other, by using paths that are known to be safe and relatively efficient yet with relatively little ATC interaction per flight--and most potential conflicts can be resolved simply by putting one of the flights in a charted holding pattern.  If every flight had to be given every turn/descent/etc. by ATC, the workload would be completely unmanageable.
In an ideal world, you'd fly direct from your departure transition fix to your arrival transition fix, but in reality, you may be stuck on airways in between or at least some intermediate fixes due to ATC computer limitations.

It might be worth pointing out that the transitions are chosen depending on the direction of arrival, while the IAPs are chosen depending on the active runway, weather and available equipment, so the point of all the STAR variants is also to connect them in all combinations that may be needed (in a well defined way so that the various procedures that may be in use at one time don't interfere with each other).

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Can I find the minimum IFR altitude based only on a SID plate?
I noticed this question here on aviation stackexchange, and I was wondering if there is a way to deduce the minimum IFR altitude (either 1000ft or 2000ft above obstacles, depending on whether or not the aircraft flies over mountainous areas) based solely on the information provided on a SID plate? Take, for example, La Guardia Five Departure (here is its textual description and here its take-off minimums).
Could someone point me in the right direction?
EDIT:
I understand that it is not required for a pilot to be aware of the minimum IFR altitude if he is following a SID. Perhaps I am overthinking it, but I am asking because I would like to know if, theoretically, an aircraft would have the right to climb with a climb gradient less than the standard (200 FPNM) while following a SID, if
A: There is not any other minimum climb gradient assigned
B: He is above 1000ft or 2000 ft (the aforementioned "minimum IFR altitude")

I'm not sure if I understand the question: if you're following an instrument procedure - or an airway - then you fly whatever altitude it requires. Or whatever ATC tells you to fly, of course. The 1000/2000 thing is a 'default' if you aren't following an explicit procedure or instruction (see 91.177). So I don't really know what the "minimum IFR altitude" would even mean to an aircraft following a SID. If you can clarify that, someone may be able to help.

@Pondlife thank you for your comment. I will edit my question in order to make it clearer.

It's really an apples to oranges question. A SID always has an initial segment below the minimum IFR altitude, because it is a departure route. STARs are similar in that regard. There is no implied minimum IFR altitude on either SIDs or STARs (Not to be confused with MEAs). This also applies to approach plates, which have a minimum safe altitude, which you hopefully never have  to use.
The correct method to determine the minimum IFR altitude for a course to be flown would be to plot a point-to-point route, and provide 1000/2000 foot above any obstacle within four nautical miles of the centerline of the route. Keep in mind that the "mountainous areas" depicted in the AIM are a quick reference for pilots, and differ substantially from the actual areas described in FAR 91.177.
The best pilot-available old school method would be to break out the sectional chart, because it has obstacle heights on it, and a navigational plotter. I've done that as a controller on several occasions.
Modern GPS has the capability to show your altitude above terrain, and can be used to obtain the same basic results. As an example, I once had an aircraft fly a point-to-point route under VFR-on-top, and he stayed below my radar coverage for about 90 miles. When I'd ask him for position and altitude information, his reports were consistent with 1000 feet above terrain, every time (there is no "wrong altitude for direction of flight" below 3000 AGL (FAA 7110.65, 4-5-2)).  Kinda cool.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Why does obstacle clearance area splay outward instead of being a rectangle?
I am having trouble figuring out the logic behind the way that obstacle clearance areas are constructed. Take, for example, a departure procedure where Initial Climb Area is defined in TERPS (section 14-1-6) as a trapezoid:

Even as far as subsequent segments are concerned, their respective obstacle clearance areas seem to follow the same pattern, like this example from TERPS:

Why is this happening? Is there a reason that at the beginning of each segment the obstacle clearance area "shrinks" and then splays outward? Especially when one considers SIDs with really lengthy segments, where near their end the aircraft's perpendicular distance from OCA's borders is huge. It would seem more reasonable to me if the obstacle clearance area was a rectangular region, as it is the case with STARs:

Could someone point me in the right direction?

I'm no TERPS expert, but isn't the trapezoid defined by the "course accuracy lines" described in the example diagram (e.g. 4.5º for a VOR)? The accuracy of the VOR is reduced the farther you get from it, so the obstacle clearance area gets larger to accommodate that?

Same as Zach, I'm no expert on TERPS either, but I believe that they also have to take into consideration winds which could constantly be pushing you from any given direction, which requires an expanded obstacle clearance area if you are flying headings instead of courses.

@Vector: Why not include the images inline in your post? Most of us won't bother to follow links and your question may suffer link rot in future.

Thank you all for your contribution, now it starts to make sense. I will keep you updated if I find something else that helps to clarify this further.

@Transistor thanks you are right. I have edited my answer accordingly.

@Lnafziger a bit off topic but since you mentioned it, could you explain briefly why obstacle clearance area is affected more from wind when you are flying headings instead of courses?

That's called "divergence" in ICAO documents and, for a departing obstacle clearance area, varies from 10° to 12.5° according to runway slope. See Annex 14, vol 1, §4.2.26. Reasons are one engine inop and wind.

If you are flying a course, wind will not change your ground track since you have to adjust your heading in order to stay on course.  If you are flying a heading, the wind will be a constant force pushing on the airplane, and could be coming from any direction so the "cone" of the obstacle clearance area has to expand as you get further from where the heading segment started.

@ZachLipton It stands to reason that the area gets larger depending on the accuracy, but while looking at figure 14-3-9 that I posted one can see that the segment from the first to the second navaid that is depicted has an expanding obstacle clearance area, despite that it approaches the (second) navaid, rather than moving further from it. Am I missing something? Is it because the first navaid is still being used for navigation, rather than the second to which the (imaginary) aircraft is heading?

Because the navigational beacons and the indicator instruments in the cockpit are such that the system is less precise at longer distances. Second the plane must find the initial fix or intersection while flying blind under IMC before becoming aligned and so the area acts like a funnel. In some areas the terrain may limit the radio beacon signal so a wedge is all that is available.
A rectangle isn't needed because planes can't make use of the inner corners and it would be both a wasted area and a hazard as a plane may be able to get in but not out. Directly over a VOR the signal is not useable and the turns in a route must be wide enough for a large-radius turn not a sharp angle precisely over the beacon. The political types like to minimize the zone of low flying aircraft noise and building restrictions on the ground dwelling tax paying voters.
STARS are higher altitude and so the design is more forgiving and can be of simple rectangles.


text:
Does transition to SBAS or GBAS navigation require alignment of the intermediate segment with final segment?
I am studying how the Satellite Based Augmentation System (SBAS)  or the Ground Based Augmentation System (GBAS) affect the Instrument Approach Procedures, and I noticed that in ICAO's Aircraft Operations manual (8168, Volume II) it states:

Part III, Section 3, Chapter 5, 5.3.1: "General. In the intermediate approach segment any sensor can be used; however, the transition to the SBAS navigation shall be made 3.7 km (2.0 NM) prior to the FAF.
Part III, Section 3, Chapter 5, 5.3.2: Alignment. The intermediate approach segment of an SBAS procedure shall be aligned with the final
  approach segment.
Part III, Section 3, Chapter 6, 6.3.2: "The intermediate approach segment of a GBAS procedure shall be aligned with the final approach course."

Does the above quotes imply that the intermediate segment must be aligned with the final segment 2.0NM prior to the FAF, in order for the aircraft to be able to switch to SBAS navigation?
In addition, concerning both SBAS and GBAS, I would like to make sure if the rule concerning the alignment of the intermediate segment with the final segment implies that the whole segment (each leg of the intermediate segment) has to be aligned with the final, rather than only the last leg.
Could someone point me in the right direction?

I've never seen an SBAS approach that had more than one intermediate segment. In all cases, the IAF/IF is aligned and more than 2 NM from the FAF. There may be multiple IAFs that feed directly to the IAF/IF. A good example is the PSM RNAV (GPS) RWY 16:

As you can see, ITAWA is aligned with PUDYE.  You can get to ITAWA via SATAN, ITAWT, or directly. Arriving directly at ITAWA requires flying the procedure hold to establish the final approach course.
GBAS (or GLS in the US) is intended as a functional replacement for ILS and as such one of the goals is that GLS mimics the behavior of an ILS. As a result, the GLS procedures are designed to be flown just like an ILS approach.
You can compare the GLS and ILS approaches to Newark Rwy 04L below:

If you compare the two, you'll see the path from the FAF HOWYA to the MAP is identical. The IFs are slightly different as the GLS IF EMBAY is a pure extension of the glide path out to 2800 elevation. The ILS path is slightly different vertically between the IF and FAF due to having to identify the IF via the DME.

Gerry thank you for the indication that SBAS approach's intermediate segment consists of one leg. I have edited the question in order to include the GBAS navigation, could you comment on that too?

@Gerry Did you use the Portsmouth approach because you thought you saw a PUDYE cat?  I did.  Hehe.

I’m just surprised someone named a waypoint SATAN

@wbeard52  IDEED.

@Gerry I think I understand now that from IF to FAF the route is a straight segment aligned with the final segment, as far as SBAS and GLS are concerned. By the way, I noticed that on ILS RWY 4L chart there is an initial segment (KILMA->HOWYA) that is not included on GLS RWY 4L chart. Any idea why this initial segment is excluded from the GLS version of the IAP?

KILMA is an intersection and an IF for the ILS/LOC approach.  Note that it's on the same radial to CRI as EMBAY.  That's because the ILS/LOC does not expect any RNAV capability.  Since the GLS approach is an RNAV procedure, it expects RNAV capability on the part of the aircraft. With an RNAV system, you don't need that IF transition.  I expect there's an RNAV SID that transitions at EMBAY.


text:
For a coded departure procedure (SID), Fly-At-Altitude or At-Waypoint instruction has priority in case of conflict?
I am examining various RNAV departure procedures and especially those whose purpose is to overlay the existing conventional ones. I noticed that some of them begin with a "Flight at Altitude" instruction, immediately followed by either a DF or CF leg which end at a Waypoint very close to the associated airport. As a consequence, an aircraft whose initial climb gradient is small enough will reach the specific altitude well after it has passed the aforementioned waypoint and as a result, if the CF/DF leg must be followed, it must fly backwards in order to comply.
Take, for example, ANEKI9F overlay departure procedure of Frankfurt Airport. The respective conventional procedure is charted as follows:

Below I provide its equivalent description, as it is included in Eurocontrol's AIP library for German procedures:

Eurocontrol Charts AD 2 EDDF 5-7-34.
ANEKI NINE FOXTROT:
On RWY track to 4.5 DME FFM/1.5 DME FRD or 800, whichever is later; LT (MAX IAS 210 KT until established on R356 RID), on R356 RID to RID (); on R183 RID to ANEKI ().
GPS/FMS RNAV: [A800+] - DF134 (25C)[L] / DF135 (25L)[L] - DF141 (25C) / DF142 (25L) - DF143[L] - DF137[K 210-; R] - RID[R] - ANEKI.

The problem is that fixes DF134 and DF135 are near runway's end. As a result, if the aircraft climbs even with 500ft/NM, it will still fly over those fixes. Or in other words, the aircraft will reach those fixes well before it climbs at 800ft.

My question is, which of those two instructions has priority? If the aircraft reaches DF134/DF135, will the "Fly at Altitude 800ft" order be negated and the aircraft will fly at the next waypoint (DF142/DF143) or should it ignore the initial waypoints (DF134/DF135) and keep climbing until it reaches at 800ft altitude and then fly at the next waypoints (DF142/DF143)?
If someone could point me in the right direction I would highly appreciate it.
EDIT: As J. Houggard aptly stated, an assigned adverse minimum climb gradient should exist for preventing this conflict from taking place. However, no such climb gradient is assigned, according to the following table (source: Eurocontrol AIP Library).

Even if the table implies that the assigned climb gradient of CINDY1F procedure also applies to ANEKI9F (315ft/NM), it is still not enough.

Presumably the SID has a minimum climb gradient which ensures that never happens

J. Hougaard thank you for your contribution. It stands to reason for an adverse climb gradient to be specified, however if I interpret the related table correctly no such climb gradient is assigned. I will edit my question to clarify this and provide an image of the aforementioned table.

I am do not know this encoding, but 800 ft is only 436 feet above that airport, did you consider this?

@MaxPower you are right that given the airport's elevation, 800ft MSL altitude are not that much but the aforementioned fixes (DF134 and DF135) are so close to DER that even with 500 ft/NM, the aircraft flies over them before reaching that altitude.

Those runways are over 2 miles long, many aircraft will be at 1000ft msl by the end of the runway with a 500ft/nm climb. Even a loaded mid size 737 (5-6000ft ground roll) should clear 800msl with room to spare.

@MaxPower I took into consideration the most adverse situation (35 feet above DER elevation) since I was mainly interested in marginal cases. Perhaps I focused so much on them that I lost the forest for the trees, so I might have to reconsider this.

The textual description says clearly:

RWY track to 4.5 DME FFM/1.5 DME FRD or 800, whichever is later

The equivalent encoding is:

[A800+] - DF134 (25C)[L] / DF135 (25L)[L]

The meaning of this is climb to an altitude of 800ft or above, then after passing DF134/DF135 turn left.
From this EUROCONTROL document (Guidance Material for the Design of Terminal Procedures for DME/DME and GNSS Area Navigation(PDF)):

[Speed, track and altitude constraints are contained within square brackets.]
If [A Set of Constraints] is not preceded by a waypoint name, the last calculated track must be flown until the constraint is reached

The turn will thus not be initiated before both the 800 ft altitude and the waypoint are reached.

Thank you DeltaLima, I appreciate your input. This means, in other words, that both conditions must be met in order for the first turn to be initiated (fly at 800 ft AND reach the waypoint, otherwise the aircraft will keep flying straight even after having passed the waypoint, until it reaches the specified altitude), have I understood this correctly? Is this the way an FMS would resolve such conflict, as it also takes a sequential series of legs as input?

To put it simply, if the specified altitude for the initial leg (for example, coded as a VA leg) is reached well after the waypoint, then the ought-to-be next leg (for example, coded as a DF leg) will be ignored?


text:
During an LPV or GLS final approach, can the extension of the aircraft's cross-section line intersect with the Y or X OCS surfaces?
I am studying Obstacle Clearance Surface construction using FAA's Performance Base Navigation manual 8260.58B as my guide. I am confused about the rules concerning aircraft's permitted altitude in relation to the OCS slope and the OCS 3D surfaces.
On page 79, a sample image for LPV/GLS final approach case is provided.

This is a 3D surface, for which the manual states:

3-4-4. Obstacle clearance surface. The primary area OCS consists of the W and X surfaces. The Y surface is an early missed approach transitional surface. The W surface slopes longitudinally along the final approach track, and is level perpendicular to track. The X and Y surfaces slope upward from the edge of the W surface perpendicular to the final approach track [see figure 3-4-3]. Obstacles located in the X and Y surfaces are adjusted in height to account for perpendicular surface rise and evaluated under the W surface.

Based on some calculations I made, from the pilot's point of view the aircraft's cross section seems to intersect with the Y OCS, even if the aircraft's theoretical position is not (it is always above the W surface since it is required by the OCS + ROC slope).
In other words, I would like to know whether the first case (please see left image below) is correct or it should always be like the second case (right image below).

Could someone point me in the right direction?
UPDATE
Since I have found some relevant information in ICAO's 8168 Volume I document, I would like to quote the passage below from Chapter 1:

1.3 AREAS
1.3.1 Where track guidance is provided in the design of a procedure, each segment comprises a specified volume
of airspace, the vertical cross-section of which is an area located symmetrically about the centre line of each segment.
The vertical cross-section of each segment is divided into primary and secondary areas. Full obstacle clearances are
applied over the primary areas reducing to zero at the outer edges of the secondary areas (see Figure I-2-1-2).
1.3.2 On straight segments, the width of the primary area at any given point is equal to one-half of the total width.
The width of each secondary area is equal to one-quarter of the total width.
1.3.3 Where no track guidance is provided during a turn specified by the procedure, the total width of the area is
considered primary area.
1.3.4 The minimum obstacle clearance (MOC) is provided for the whole width of the primary area. In the
secondary area, MOC is provided at the inner edges reducing to zero at the outer edges (see Figure I-2-1-2).

The above figure depicts the assumed lowest flight path in such a way that the cross-section does not intersect with secondary area's OCS surface. However, I am not sure if it is just an example for demonstration, and the aircraft is supposed to be anywhere inside the canyon-like 3D OCS.

The OCS is the edge of the safe flight 'corridor.' It defines a safe volume of airspace for the approach. Since it's normal to have obstacles off to the side of the approach path the OCS typically rises as you move away from the approach centerline.
Your Case 1 is the most correct description of an aircraft flying the approach. The green 'floor' normally will extend greater than one 'dot' on either side of the localizer (or localizer look-alike) and is at least one 'dot' below the glide path. That is the reason a missed approach should be executed if you deviate more than one dot from the approach path. At the zero deviation level for glide path (your blue dashed line in Case 1 assuming the a/c is on path) the intersection with the yellow (x surface) should be beyond the full scale left/right deviation.
Essentially the OCS defines a canyon that you can safely fly through to the runway. So yes, the extension of the aircraft's cross section line can intersect the x and y surfaces, but the aircraft itself should not.

Gerry thank you for your thorough answer. Could you also clarify the reason behind the use of 3D surfaces, instead of surfaces belonging to the same (horizontal) plane? Provided that OCS surfaces represent aircraft's uncertainity regarding its position, using a canyon-like surface seems to imply that a deviation from centerline will probably result in a higher altitude and thus the aircraft will be safe. I have also updated my answer a bit with information found in the related ICAO manual.

I think you are approaching this from the wrong angle.OCS is not suggesting that deviation from centerline will result in higher alt; it merely allows for somewhat higher obstacles to be present as long as they are far enough from centerline. This might (if choose to see it that way) imply that the more certain you are of your position the more you can safely descend.


text:
Is there a manual which describes the algorithmic procedure on which the Vertical Navigation Guidance is based?
I am interested in the methods implemented by Flight Management Systems in order to calculate a trajectory path of vertical navigation guidance (VNAV), which takes into consideration the legs of the instrument procedures used for a flight plan, among other things such as aircraft's performance characteristics, wind etc.
In other words, a manual or a guide from official sources (for example, FAA, ICAO or Eurocontrol), but other reliable third-party solutions would also suffice.
I am mainly interested in a way to determine the vertical profile of an instrument flight procedure (SID, STAR, IAP) based on its legs and any crossing altitude or speed constraints that are assigned to any of their waypoints.
Can someone point me in the right direction? I am aware that there is not one way of determining the vertical profile of a route, however my guess is that some universally accepted guidelines must exist.
EDIT: I will provide some more information about what I have in mind, based on Noah's contribution. Let's take for example FINNZ2 and HHERO3 departure procedures of KSNA airport. We can see that some of the waypoints have crossing altitudes assigned.

Can an acceptable implementation of vertical navigation be based on the aforementioned crossing altitudes, by considering them as mandatory altitudes that an aircraft must have while passing from them? This would mean that every such crossing altitude would be considered as "CROSS X AT Y ALTITUDE" restriction, even if it is At or Above, At or Below or Block.
Something like the following vertical profiles:

In other words, I am trying to figure out if this would be a useful or realistic information that an FMS would also provide.
My other idea would be to take a predefined climb gradient for the aircraft, let's say 500 feet per nautical miles and adjust the vertical path if any waypoint crossing altitude restrictions are violated.

The equipment onboard the aircraft knows the altitude and position it is located plus the position of the proximate waypoint. Along with the distance to waypoint and groundspeed, it is simple math to calculate the rate of descent/climb to arrive properly.

That sounds like an answer to me...

For this answer:

Hard altitude requirement - a fixed altitide which an airplane must
be at. (eg. 7000ft)
Soft altitude requirement - a window of altitudes for the aircraft to
be at (eg. abv. 3500ft, between 9000ft and 12000ft)
Using a 757 for all examples unless specified otherwise.

A simple FMS may simply assume and use the minimum of a soft requirement as the desired altitude, as you correctly stated.
However, in airliners, it is much more common to use what is called a "Cost Index" (CI) to calculate speeds, climb rates and the like.
Cost index can be calculated as so:
CI = (Time cost/hr)/(Fuel cost/lb)
A CI of 9999 means that the FMC will aim for Velocity Maximum Operating (VMO) in every stage of flight. Whereas a CI of 0 will result in the FMS aiming for the following:

+=================================+===============+===============+
|              Climb              |    Cruise     |    Descent     |
+=================================+===============+===============+
| Minimum fuel to cruise altitude | Maximum Range | Max L/D ratio |

So that will lead to the following speeds:

+============+=======+========+========+
| Cost Index | Climb | Cruise | Descent|
+============+=======+========+========+
|          0 | 290kn | .778m  | 250kn  |
+------------+-------+--------+--------+
|       9999 | 345kn | .847m  | 334kn  |
+------------+-------+--------+--------+

Now we have climb speeds, we can work backwards to calculate the best climb or descent rate for this speed (I can't find a reliable source for this, so that's where the practical examples end). From here; TOD, TOC and TTC. As long as an FMS can remain at its best CI speed to meet an altitude requirement, it will. Otherwise it will alter best CI speed by the smallest amount possible to meet the requirements.
Some good (debatable) reading is this report by MITRE, an information security organisation. They found that most FMS' tested had very little variation in the time they began descents and climbs, as well as altitudes for a fixed CI. They also found that the RTCA standards for RNP - called RTCA DO-236 where generally adhered to in every tested FMS.
That means the following was met:

... tolerances for a
  flight along a specified vertical path is 160’ for 0’-
  5000’, 210’ for 5000’-29000’, and 260’ for 29000’-
  41,000

MITRE also says:

If a preceding waypoint is encountered before the altitude of the
  constraint specified for that waypoint has been reached, then the
  constraint altitude of the waypoint is adopted for the reference path
  altitude at the waypoint.

Now, armed with our new CI based climb rates and speeds, my other answer can be used to finish our calculations and work out where (in the Z dimension) the aircraft will reach a soft requirement.

Apologies for the rambling. If you need anything clarified LMK.

Once again, thanks for your input! You are of great assistance. Just some minor clarifications: first of all, what are those values of "Cruise" column which are in meters (eg .778m)? Also, you mention "From here; TOD, TOC and TTC". Did you want to use a link there?

Sorry, that's 77.8% of mach.  Mach 0.778.
TOD - Top of descent, TOC - Top of climb, Time to climb

My mistake, I should have realised that by myself. If I could accept both of your answers as correct then I would definitely do! :-)

By the way, how did you calculate those speed values? Is there any source/database that can help me calculate speed values based on Cost Index, as you did? In addition, you stated that "As long as an FMS can remain at its best CI speed to meet an altitude requirement, it will". This seems to me to imply that climb/descent rate affects climb/descent gradient (feet per nautical mile). Is there any source that makes this connection (eg for X type of aircraft, optimal climb gradient is this value based on that speed range (climb/descent rates). Apologies if I'm asking something too obvious!

Boeing: https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_02_10/pdfs/AERO_FuelConsSeries.pdf

Airbus: https://ansperformance.eu/library/airbus-cost-index.pdf

The Boeing document is where the details from my answer come from, but the Airbus one is good too, it breaks down CI to an unbelievable extent.

Also yes, GS (In the form of CAS corrected for Pressure height, then wind) is one of the main factors in determining climb/descent. The formula is as follows: Rate of Climb = Required gradient x ground speed.

I programmed a virtual FMS for testing of new airways and STARs, and I completely agree with the comment left by @MikeBrass. Ultimately, there is no standard for how FMS systems complete this task as long as they come to the same result.
It is very simple trigonometry and other, high school level, math concepts. The FMS knows the 3D coordinates for the waypoint (We'll call these X2,Y2,Z2) as well as the current GPS coordinates, altitude, true heading, and a myriad of other sensors that it uses to calculate the aircraft's current position in space (X1,Y1,Z1). It also uses the differences in GPS GS and CAS to work out the forward (Or rearward) component of the wind, and the differences in True Heading and TMG to calculate the sideways component of wind. We now have all the information required to complete calculations for nearly any scenario.
Required Crossing Altitude Scenario / Speed Restraints:
In this instance, the first calculation would be one of Altitude to gain (OR loose). This is as simple as Z2-Z1. Now, assuming a fixed (Pilot set speed or speed restrictions based on procedure) speed we can easily calculate a climb rate in FPM. This is done by creating a 2D line that travels between points X2,Y2 and X1,Y1 and calculating distance between those 2 points, along the line. Dividing this by GPS ground speed, and computing heading and GS changes along this leg similar to how a student pilot might do with a "Whiz Wheel".
If the pilot changes speed, or the forward component of the wind changes during the climb or decent, you just need to run this calculation again but with the new position of the aircraft in 3D space.
Curved approach segments complicate this slightly but interpreting these as a 2D curve will greatly simplify your calculations.
If this doesn't answer your question, you may want to reword it.

@Noah thank you very much for your thorough answer. What troubles me is that a waypoint does not necessarily have an assigned crossing altitude, which means that an FMS knows the 2D (Χ, Υ), rather than the 3D (X, Y, Z) coordinates of this waypoint. How do you fill those missing altitude values? In addition, I can grasp the relatively easiness of these calculations but do you have in mind any official documentation that describes the necessary equations? Because other sources mention more complex calculations that also take aircraft performance (eg weight, max CG etc) into consideration.

@VectorZita,
If there is no crossing ALT, then the climb is simply considered as a part of the original climb segment. To either the next required crossing ALT or the final cruise ALT. It's just one climb with a turn at some point along it.
You certainly are correct, most modern FMS systems to take into account all the available Performance Data. Aircraft performance is mostly used to calculate details that the Autopilot (If coupled) will use to complete the climb, EG, Engine power settings, trim stab settings, ETC. This data really has very little relevance to actual 3D navigation.

I'd think that any information like what you're requesting would be trade secret and wouldn't be available outside an FMS manufacturer or OEM like Boeing.
I'd have a look at the ARNIC 429 data format, in addition to DO-178C.
ARNIC will tell you what data an FMS will have about a procedure, and DO-178C will tell you all about what an FMS must be resilient against.
You might be able to answer some of your questions with these Docs.

Noah thanks again for your feedback, really appreciated. I edited my question in order to clarify one last thing about an idea that I have, based on your contribution. Could you check it out and offer some advice about the demonstared examples too?

Ah okay, I understand more of what you're asking now.
I might put it as a separate answer as it really has little relevance to this answer.


text:
What are the ICAO fuel reserve requirements?
How much reserve fuel are private and commercial aircraft required to carry by ICAO rules?
I heard that it changed recently (about a year ago) and is a little complicated.  How is it calculated for a particular flight?

It's no longer 'enough to get to your destination plus 30 minutes'?

@flyingfisch one source I looked at also required you to get to your alt and then make a missed approach + 30 minutes

@ratchetfreak ah ok, the ground school course I took a couple years ago said enough to get to the destination, plus 30 minutes. Of course, things may have changed, and/or the ground school course simplified the rules.

@flyingfisch and different rules if the nearest diversion field is more than 30 minutes plus circle time away, and at night, and and and...

The following includes the changes you allude to (which were proposed in ICAO State Letter SP 59/4.1-11/8 on June 30, 2011).
Commercial Flights
Per ICAO Annex 6, Part I, section 4.3.6 "Fuel Requirements," airplanes should calculate their required fuel quantity as follows (summary; see below for actual ICAO text):

Taxi fuel
Trip fuel (to reach intended destination)
Contingency fuel (higher of 5% of "trip fuel" or 5 minutes of holding flight)
Destination alternate fuel (to fly a missed and reach an alternate)
Final reserve fuel (45 minutes of holding flight for reciprocating engines, 30 minutes for jets)
Additional fuel (if needed to guarantee ability to reach an alternate with an engine failure or at lower altitude due to a pressurization loss)
Discretionary fuel (if the pilot in command wants it)

General Aviation
For general aviation, ICAO Annex 6 Part II, section 2.2.3.6 "Fuel and oil supply" requires:

For IFR, enough fuel to reach destination, then alternate (if required), plus 45 minutes
For day VFR, enough fuel to reach destination plus 30 minutes
For night VFR, enough fuel to reach destination plus 45 minutes

ICAO Annex 6 Part I
From the ninth edition:

4.3.6.3 The pre-flight calculation of usable fuel required shall include:
a) taxi fuel, which shall be the amount of fuel expected to be consumed before take-off;
b) trip fuel, which shall be the amount of fuel required to enable the aeroplane to fly from take-off, or the point of in-flight
  re-planning, until landing at the destination aerodrome taking into account the operating conditions of 4.3.6.2 b);
c) contingency fuel, which shall be the amount of fuel required to compensate for unforeseen factors. It shall be five per
  cent of the planned trip fuel or of the fuel required from the point of in-flight re-planning based on the consumption
  rate used to plan the trip fuel but, in any case, shall not be lower than the amount required to fly for five minutes at
  holding speed at 450 m (1 500 ft) above the destination aerodrome in standard conditions;

Note.— Unforeseen factors are those which could have an influence on the fuel consumption to the destination
    aerodrome, such as deviations of an individual aeroplane from the expected fuel consumption data, deviations from
    forecast meteorological conditions, extended taxi times before take-off, and deviations from planned routings and/or
    cruising levels.

d) destination alternate fuel, which shall be:

where a destination alternate aerodrome is required, the amount of fuel required to enable the aeroplane to:
  i) perform a missed approach at the destination aerodrome;
  ii) climb to the expected cruising altitude;
  iii) fly the expected routing;
  iv) descend to the point where the expected approach is initiated; and
  v) conduct the approach and landing at the destination alternate aerodrome; or
where two destination alternate aerodromes are required, the amount of fuel, as calculated in 4.3.6.3 d) 1),
  required to enable the aeroplane to proceed to the destination alternate aerodrome which requires the greater
  amount of alternate fuel; or
where a flight is operated without a destination alternate aerodrome, the amount of fuel required to enable the
  aeroplane to fly for 15 minutes at holding speed at 450 m (1 500 ft) above destination aerodrome elevation in
  standard conditions; or
where the aerodrome of intended landing is an isolated aerodrome:
  i) for a reciprocating engine aeroplane, the amount of fuel required to fly for 45 minutes plus 15 per cent of the
  flight time planned to be spent at cruising level, including final reserve fuel, or two hours, whichever is less;
  or
  ii) for a turbine-engined aeroplane, the amount of fuel required to fly for two hours at normal cruise
  consumption above the destination aerodrome, including final reserve fuel;

e) final reserve fuel, which shall be the amount of fuel calculated using the estimated mass on arrival at the destination
  alternate aerodrome, or the destination aerodrome when no destination alternate aerodrome is required:

for a reciprocating engine aeroplane, the amount of fuel required to fly for 45 minutes, under speed and altitude
  conditions specified by the State of the Operator; or
for a turbine-engined aeroplane, the amount of fuel required to fly for 30 minutes at holding speed at 450 m
  (1 500 ft) above aerodrome elevation in standard conditions;

f) additional fuel, which shall be the supplementary amount of fuel required if the minimum fuel calculated in accordance with 4.3.6.3 b), c), d) and e) is not sufficient to:

allow the aeroplane to descend as necessary and proceed to an alternate aerodrome in the event of engine failure
  or loss of pressurization, whichever requires the greater amount of fuel based on the assumption that such a failure
  occurs at the most critical point along the route;
  i) fly for 15 minutes at holding speed at 450 m (1 500 ft) above aerodrome elevation in standard conditions; and
  ii) make an approach and landing;
allow an aeroplane engaged in EDTO to comply with the EDTO critical fuel scenario as established by the State
  of the Operator;
meet additional requirements not covered above;

Note 1.— Fuel planning for a failure that occurs at the most critical point along a route (4.3.6.3 f) 1)) may place
    the aeroplane in a fuel emergency situation based on 4.3.7.2.
Note 2.— Guidance on EDTO critical fuel scenarios is contained in Attachment D;

g) discretionary fuel, which shall be the extra amount of fuel to be carried at the discretion of the pilot-in-command.

ICAO Annex 6 Part II

2.2.3.6 Fuel and oil supply
A flight shall not be commenced unless, taking into account both the meteorological conditions and any delays that are
  expected in flight, the aeroplane carries sufficient fuel and oil to ensure that it can safely complete the flight. The amount of
  fuel to be carried must permit:
a) when the flight is conducted in accordance with the instrument flight rules and a destination alternate aerodrome is
  not required in accordance with 2.2.3.5, flight to the aerodrome of intended landing, and after that, for at least 45
  minutes at normal cruising altitude; or
b) when the flight is conducted in accordance with the instrument flight rules and a destination alternate aerodrome is
  required, flight from the aerodrome of intended landing to an alternate aerodrome, and after that, for at least 45
  minutes at normal cruising altitude; or
c) when the flight is conducted in accordance with the visual flight rules by day, flight to the aerodrome of intended
  landing, and after that, for at least 30 minutes at normal cruising altitude; or
d) when the flight is conducted in accordance with the visual flight rules by night, flight to the aerodrome of intended
  landing and thereafter for at least 45 minutes at normal cruising altitude.

Fuel & oil (propeller –driven A/c)
A) When a destination alternate is required
B) When destination aerodrome is VMC /alternate not required
C) When a destination is isolated and no suitable destination alternate is available
i. Fuel to destination ………. A
(includes one approach and a missed approach)
ii. + fuel is specified diversion ……….B
iii. + 45 mts
i.e A+B+45 mts
i. Fuel to destination …. A
ii. +45 mts
i.e A+45 mts
i. Fuel to destination …. A
ii. + 45 mts+15 5 of cruising time or 2 hrs ….B
which is less
i.e A+B
Fuel & oil (Turbo jets)
A. When a destination alternate is required
Fuel destination including an approach and a missed approach ...A
Fuel to alternate aerodrome as specified in flights plan …B

30 mts holding at 1500’ at holding speed above alternate aerodrome in ISA
Approach
land

Additional contingency fuel as specified by operator …C
i.e A+B + 30 mts holding at 1500’ +approach + landing fuel +C
B. When a destination alternate is not required because destination is VMC
Fuel to destination + 30 mts holding fuel at 1500’ above the aerodrome destination at holding speed in ISA …. B
Additional contingency fuel as specified by operator …C
i.e A+B+C
C. When destination is isolated and no suitable destination alternate aerodrome is available
Fuel to destination + 2 hrs fuel at normal fuel cruise consumption …. B
i.e A+B

I cannot figure out how to properly edit this for decent spacing

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
How does a US registered pilot obtain approval to fly to Cuba?
Because of US foreign policy, flights between the US and Cuba are prohibited except for certain conditions.  If I am flying there for an approved reason (such as to visit immediate family), how do I obtain the proper permission to do so?

To obtain approval to fly to Cuba you must first sumbit an application for an OFAC (Office of Foreign Assets Control) License through their Cuba Travel website or by mail:

Office of Foreign Assets Control
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Treasury Annex
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20220

Once you have your OFAC license, that completes your US legal requirements, as far as I'm aware.* There are other requirements that you have to fulfill to receive a Cuban visa upon entering, but since you have asked about obtaining US approval I haven't looked into that in detail.
For the record, this is the same method that anyone would use to travel to Cuba. Pilots flying to Cuba must ensure that all their passengers also have their own individual OFAC license.

* I am not a lawyer. Please do not consider this to be legal advice. I would recommend calling OFAC and inquiring for further help with the process.

Sources:

Cuba: What You Need To Know About U.S. Sanctions Against Cuba - OFAC
OFAC Contact Info


text:
Which approach category minimums should I use when conducting an instrument approach?
FAR 91.3 says:

Aircraft approach category means a grouping of aircraft based on a
  speed of VREF, if specified, or if VREF is not specified, 1.3 Vso at
  the maximum certificated landing weight. VREF, Vso, and the maximum
  certificated landing weight are those values as established for the
  aircraft by the certification authority of the country of registry.
  The categories are as follows—
(1) Category A: Speed less than 91 knots.
(2) Category B: Speed 91 knots or more but less than 121 knots.
(3) Category C: Speed 121 knots or more but less than 141 knots.
(4) Category D: Speed 141 knots or more but less than 166 knots.
(5) Category E: Speed 166 knots or more.

So an aircraft category never changes because it is always Vref at max landing weight.
What if I fly an approach at a speed that falls into a different category?  For instance, a jet may land at significantly less than this speed if very light, or more than this speed if landing with less than full flaps due to a failure (or any other operational reason).  Which minimums do you use then?

New answer due to updated FAA guidance:
TLDR
The short version is that a pilot is only required to use the approach category for the aircraft's maximum certified landing weight and to stay within the protected area while circling.
However, it is recommended that if a speed higher than the maximum for that category must be used that the pilot either should use 1) the corresponding minimums for the higher category, or 2) an alternative method (i.e. company or pilot provided).
EXPANDED ANSWER
AIM 5-4-7(a) states that an aircraft must stay within the circling approach protected area during the approach.
It then says in AIM 5-4-7(b) that "one acceptable method" is to use the approach category corresponding with the speed that will be flown (certified approach category or higher).
It continues in AIM 5-4-7(c) with considerations for a pilot who chooses an "alternative method" to remain within the protected area.  One example that they provide is that this may be done where higher category minimums are not published.
There is a very nice writeup on this that the NBAA released at the beginning of 2020.
From a safety perspective, the most commonly used method is that stated in 5-4-7(b), which used to be what the AIM said must be done prior to this change.
I can see where an alternative method may be useful (such as a side-step which doesn't actually require you to maneuver out of the protected area), however keep in mind that you must remain inside the protected area at all times, including during the missed approach (even if you don't expect to go missed).  In some cases, the only reason for having higher minimums (or even NA) is due to the missed approach procedure obstacle clearance.
FULL TEXT OF SUMMARIZED PARTS:

AIM 5-4-7. Instrument Approach Procedures
a. Aircraft approach category means a
grouping of aircraft based on a speed of VREF at the maximum certified
landing weight, if specified, or if VREF is not specified, 1.3VSO at
the maximum certified landing weight. VREF, VSO, and the maximum
certified landing weight are those values as established for the
aircraft by the certification authority of the country of registry. A
pilot must maneuver the aircraft within the circling approach
protected area (see FIG 5-4-29) to achieve the obstacle and terrain
clearances provided by procedure design criteria.
b. In addition to pilot
techniques for maneuvering, one acceptable method to reduce the risk
of flying out of the circling approach protected area is to use either
the minima corresponding to the category determined during
certification or minima associated with a higher category. Helicopters
may use Category A minima. If it is necessary to operate at a speed in
excess of the upper limit of the speed range for an aircraft's
category, the minimums for the higher category should be used. This
may occur with certain aircraft types operating in heavy/gusty wind,
icing, or non-normal conditions. For example, an airplane which fits
into Category B, but is circling to land at a speed of 145 knots,
should use the approach Category D minimums. As an additional example,
a Category A airplane (or helicopter) which is operating at 130 knots
on a straight-in approach should use the approach Category C minimums.
c. A pilot who chooses an alternative method when it is necessary to
maneuver at a speed that exceeds the category speed limit (for
example, where higher category minimums are not published) should
consider the following factors that can significantly affect the
actual ground track flown:

Bank angle. For example, at 165 knots
groundspeed, the radius of turn increases from 4,194 feet using 30
degrees of bank to 6,654 feet when using 20 degrees of bank. When
using a shallower bank angle, it may be necessary to modify the
flightpath or indicated airspeed to remain within the circling
approach protected area. Pilots should be aware that excessive bank
angle can lead to a loss of aircraft control.
Indicated airspeed.
Procedure design criteria typically utilize the highest speed for a
particular category. If a pilot chooses to operate at a higher speed,
other factors should be modified to ensure that the aircraft remains
within the circling approach protected area.
Wind speed and direction.
For example, it is not uncommon to maneuver the aircraft to a downwind
leg where the groundspeed will be considerably higher than the
indicated airspeed. Pilots must carefully plan the initiation of all
turns to ensure that the aircraft remains within the circling approach
protected area.
Pilot technique. Pilots frequently have many options
with regard to flightpath when conducting circling approaches. Sound
planning and judgment are vital to proper execution. The lateral and
vertical path to be flown should be carefully considered using current
weather and terrain information to ensure that the aircraft remains
within the circling approach protected area.
...

OLD Answer:
According to the FAA Safety Alert for Operators issued on 09/20/2012 (SAFO 12005):

A pilot may never use the approach minimums specified for an approach category lower than their certified approach category, even if the actual approach is flown at a speed that would be in the lower approach category.
A pilot must always use the approach minimums specified for an approach category higher than their certified approach category if the actual approach will be flown at a speed that would be in the higher approach category.

Note that this is different in other areas of the world (Canada for example uses the actual approach speed of the aircraft to determine the approach category).

So when you have an ILS with a GS steeper than usual, and Cat D mins are NA... And you're in your certified-as-Cat-C aircraft, but due to being fairly heavy & less than full flaps and adding speed for gusts, you're into Cat D speeds. No circling involved -- straight-in ILS.  Are you legal to fly those speeds on that approach?

@ralph According to the new guidance, yes, as long as you remain within the protected airspace at all times (including if you have to go missed). They still recommend an alternate procedure to ensure this  (Note that paragraph B in the AIM text includes an example very similar to this). That being said, unless you have an ironclad plan which you can execute to guarantee that you won't overshoot a turn, I don't think that this is very smart....


text:
Does a Type Rating "upgrade" with your license?
I believe anything the FAA refers to as a "rating" upgrades automatically with your license. For example, if I get my instrument rating on my Private Pilot License, I don't have to retake the instrument checkride when I get my commercial license in order to fly IFR commercially. This is not true for license classes (single engine land, multi-engine land, single engine sea, multi-engine sea). If I get a private MEL, and then take my commercial checkride in a single engine, I still have to take another commercial MEL checkride in order to exercise commercial privileges in a multi-engine airplane.
The question is, do type ratings work like instrument ratings or like license classes, and what regulations govern this?

I don't have to retake the instrument checkride when I get my commercial license.  But you do have to demonstrate instrument tasks. If you don't, your licence will be limited to VFR only.

The answer to this lies in 8900.1, Volume 5, Chapter 2, Section 18 - Conduct an Airline Transport Pilot Certification, Including Additional Category/Class Ratings.
In most cases, yes the type rating "upgrades" or "elevates" along with your license since the type rating is always evaluated at ATP standards, even if you only have a private or commercial certificate.
Exceptions are type ratings for single-engine airplanes and type ratings that have a "VFR ONLY" restriction.
8900.1 excerpt:

5-710    PILOT CERTIFICATE LEVEL AND CATEGORY AND CLASS RATING. The following category and class rating(s) for which the applicant has
  qualified on the original or subsequent ATP practical tests are
  entered on the ATP certificate.
A.    Addition of Lighter-than-Air and Glider Class Ratings. A lighter-than-air or glider category rating may be added to an existing
  ATP certificate; however, the rating may be added only at the
  recreational, private, or commercial pilot certificate level, as
  appropriate to the practical test completed. There is no provision for
  the original issuance of an ATP certificate with a lighter-than-air or
  glider category rating.
B.    Type Ratings. Type rating tests are conducted to the ATP standard for all grades of pilot certificate. Therefore, all type
  ratings in that category and class of aircraft for which the practical
  test is conducted in are upgraded after successful completion of the
  practical test. For example, a person who holds B-737, DC-3, and SK-62
  type ratings on his or her commercial pilot certificate, and later
  satisfactorily completes an ATP practical test in a CE-750, would have
  his/her B-737 and DC-3 type ratings elevated up to the ATP
  certificate. The SK-62 would not elevate up because the practical test
  was in a multiengine airplane. However, when the person satisfactorily
  completes an ATP practical test in a helicopter, the SK-62 would then
  elevate up to the ATP certificate. Therefore, all of the type ratings
  held on the superseded certificate carry forward at the new
  certificate level within category and class.
NOTE:  A type rating for a single-engine airplane may not be upgraded
  to the ATP level.
1)    Except for type ratings and, under some circumstances, the
  instrument rating, other ratings indicated on the superseded pilot
  certificate are carried forward at the commercial, private, or
  recreational pilot certificate level, as indicated on the superseded
  certificate.
2)    Instrument rating privileges are shown on the ATP certificate
  only if the ATP practical test was conducted under visual flight rules
  (VFR) only, or to retain instrument privileges that were held on the
  superseded certificate for a category of aircraft other than the one
  used for the ATP practical test.
C.    Type Rating Limited to VFR. A type rating bearing the limitation “VFR ONLY” may be added to an existing certificate other
  than an ATP certificate under the provisions of § 61.63(e). This
  limitation may be added to an aircraft type rating not capable of
  instrument maneuvers or procedures required on a practical test. The
  practical test must be administered under the appropriate ATP PTS for
  an aircraft type rating limited to “VFR ONLY”. A type rating bearing
  the limitation “VFR ONLY” may be added to an existing ATP certificate
  under the provisions of § 61.157(g). The practical test must be
  administered under the appropriate ATP PTS for an aircraft type rating
  limited to “VFR ONLY.”
NOTE:  There is no provision for taking an initial practical test for
  an ATP certificate in an aircraft that would require a VFR limitation.

Apparently the FAA uses both upgrade and elevate. "...for which the practical test is conducted in are upgraded after successful completion..." and "would have his/her B-737 and DC-3 type ratings elevated up to the ATP certificate."

Wow, they can't even stay consistent in the same paragraph!

"There is no provision for the original issuance of an ATP certificate with a lighter-than-air or glider category rating." Aw, shucks! There goes my plan for a glider-based airline!

@raptortech97 slightly more realistically, does that mean there can't be a blimp airline? (blimpline?)


text:
Why does FAA not include certain SIDs and STARs in its CIFP file, even though they are regularly used in flight planning?
I was correlating the instrument flight procedures found in flight plans from 1st April 2019 with the ones included in FAA's CIFP database. I noticed that in those flight plans there are some SIDs and STARs which are not coded in the CIFP file. Is that possible? If yes, is there any reason why these flight procedures are omitted?
Examples (SIDs):

JITKA2: KSGU.JITKA2.JITKA. (...)
MCOY2: KMCO.MCOY2.GUANO.. (...)

Yes it is possible and it is mentioned in the accompanying CIFP Readme pdf. Specifically, it states that

Procedure types that are not yet included in the CIFP: ILS CAT II, ILS CAT III, ILS PRM,
  Converging ILS and Visual procedures are not included in the CIFP.
Not-In-CIFP Spreadsheet: ILS (Category 1 only), LOC, SDF, LDA, VOR, NDB, GPS, RNAV
  (GPS), RNAV (RNP), GPS Overlays, GPS and RNAV (GPS) helicopter approaches, SIDs and
  STARs that do not appear in the CIFP will be listed in the Not-In-CIFP spreadsheet. Note that only
  FAA-developed procedures are included in the CIFP. Approach types listed above that are developed
  outside the FAA, such as Navy or Air Force procedures, will not appear in this spreadsheet.

In other words, even though you can at least acknowledge their existence by searching for the missing SIDs and STARs in the aforementioned xlsx spreadsheet, you do not have any information about their structure. As for why they are not included I can not tell for sure, but as far as I could realize from my own research, the few procedures not included in the CIFP file belong to the "old" IFPs (conventional, non-RNAV). This might mean something, but in any case it is my own (un)educated guess and by no means anything that can be confirmed from an official source.


text:
What causes the vortex on the tip of this vertical stabilizer (CFD Simulation)

This is a computational fluid dynamics simulation of an airfoil that is oriented to look like a vertical stabilizer. After watching the video, it becomes clear that the tip of the stabilizer causes a counter-clockwise vortex (if looking at the trailing edge). According to this answer, vortices only form on vertical stabilizers if a control surface (the rudder) is deflected. In this simulation, the rudder appears to be completely in-line with the rest of the airfoil.
Furthermore, there also appears to be a slight clockwise rotation on the bottom of the stabilizer, where it would attach to the aircraft's tail. This seems even harder to explain, given the opposite rotation and angular velocity of the top one. I can only assume this is partially caused by the disturbances from what look like hinges farther up. Is this reasonable?
TL;DR: What causes the strong vortex on the tip of this vertical stabilizer?

How can you be sure there's no sideslip?

@JZYL I personally see no disturbance that indicates any kind of slip

The vortices you ask about are in fact the very "disturbance" that you cannot see for looking. If you rotate the image clockwise a quarter-turn (or turn your head the other way), you appear to be looking down on a wing from above and everything becomes much more obvious.

The subtitle of the video states:

This video shows a high-fidelity CFD simulation of flow control applied to realistic wing profiles using PHASTA and ParaView Catalyst. Work done by Michel Rasquin from Argonne and Ken Jansen from UC Boulder.

Realistic wing profiles sounds like: we're actually looking at a wing in a vertical orientation - or in a horizontal orientation from a viewpoint that causes some confusion. Looking at a wing at some Angle of Attack that creates lift, and therefore the visualised flow pattern. And then the two vortices are caused by the end effect of finite wing span.

Agreed. If the description says it is an airfoil then it is one and behaves like one. Changing the orientation does not transform it to a stabilizer.


text:
What information am I legally required to provide during a FAA ramp check?
I was taught during my private pilot training to only provide the minimum information necessary to the FAA when they ask for something so that you don't open yourself up to more scrutiny.
In that spirit, what am I legally required to provide to an FAA inspector during a ramp check?  If they ask for something, can I tell them "No" or "I will respond to that in writing within 30 days after I have my lawyer review your question"?
In my car, I can refuse to let them look inside unless they have a search warrant.  Does the same apply with a private airplane?

Golden rule for FAA interactions: Never tell them anything they don't need to know. Golden rule for ramp checks: Always ask for the FAA ID. If the person doesn't have it, there is no ramp check.

AOPA has a good article on this topic:

You're required to present pilot and medical certificates (plus logbook if required for flight)
The inspector may not detain you
The inspector may not board the aircraft without informing you

But an inspector is authorized to check the following items:

The airworthiness certificate
The aircraft registration
The operating handbook
The weight and balance information
The minimum equipment list (if applicable)
Aeronautical charts (if applicable)
The general airworthiness of the aircraft
The ELT battery
A VOR check
The seats/safety belts.

In general, saying as little as possible seems to be a good plan:

If the ramp check is due to a possible violation, anything you say or
  do may be used against you.
If you have enrolled in AOPA's Legal Services Plan, call AOPA's Pilot
  Information Center at 800/USA-AOPA immediately. The consequences for
  even minor infractions can be far more serious than you might think.

As for a search warrant, a ramp check is an FAA administrative process, not a law enforcement action. The issue of law enforcement checking private aircraft is a hot topic currently and AOPA provides a checklist in case you are stopped for search. Their recommendation is to refuse the search (unless they have a warrant, of course) but not interfere if they go ahead and do it anyway.

"The inspector may not board the aircraft without informing you".  So this means that he just has to inform me and then he can go on board?  I.e. I can't refuse?

@Inafziger That isn't 100% clear (to me) but I think the FAA's handbook for part 91 inspections implies yes: "An inspector must not board any aircraft without the knowledge of the crew or operator. Some operators may prefer to have a company representative present to answer questions." In practice, you could check all the items above on a C152 just by leaning in the door, but on a larger aircraft it's hard to see how the inspector could do that without actually boarding.

In general, I suggest to my (non-primary) students, that they not have their logbook available.  This gives them opportunity to check endorsements, etc. prior to presenting them to the FAA.  As a CFI it has been my experience that students will fly with me, without evidence of IFR currency, landing (or night) currency and even flight reviews. I almost all cases, the student had the endorsement somewhere, sometimes in a different logbook. By deferring to later, one has the time to get the records together. Except for student pilots, most pilots do not need their logbook on the flight.

My CFI instructed me to present my Pilot's License for the inspector to view (only if asked) but never to hand it to him ... because that is interpreted by the FAA as "voluntarily surrendering" one's license ... in which case he may keep it.
I have nothing to back that up, but this is an instructor with 3500 hours and serves as an airport chairman, so I tend to believe he knows.
The same person tells me that the most common reason for random ramp checks is to find private pilots flying what can be determined by the FAA to be flights for compensation of some kind.  AOPA had an article about a month ago about the ambiguity of this regulation.  The FAA's definition of "compensation" seems to be so far reaching it is undefinable.  If, for example, I fly a friend to a college football game and he later helps me get a better paying job, the FAA seems to be saying that they can determine that I received an indirect benefit (compensation) as a result of our joy ride.  Laughable.


text:
What website(s) can I use to plan an IFR route along airways? WORLDWIDE
I'm looking for a good website where I can create a IFR route including the airways. I tried route finder but it doesn't give me the airways.

What country are you looking for?

I'm looking for a website for the whole world including Europe.

For the United States, Skyvector is easy and free.
Use the buttons in the top-right corner to switch to "World Lo", that will give you instrument charts.

It shows the airways, but it doesn't seem to want to generate routes in Europe.

@CrossRoads My guess is that it pulls routes from the FAA Preferred Routes database, and the FAA doesn't concern themselves with Europe.  That's just a guess though.

Try Skyvector.com. Try "World Lo" for the map view. Select Flight plan, enter Start and End locations, select Routes. Select one of the route options that appears.  Edit the routing if you want to change (or add) airways or intermediate airports.


text:
When is International Procedures Training required?
The companies that I have worked for in the past require International Procedures Training like the ones offered by Scott IPC, Flight Safety, CAE Simuflite, etc.
Under what conditions is this training required?  (I.e. do I need it to fly to Canada, Mexico, or the Bahamas or is it just to cross the Atlantic/Pacific?)
What regulation requires this training and how often is it required?

I have never heard of a specific "International Procedures"  program/rating. However, this was taken from one of the websites offering this training:

"it will satisfy the training requirements needed for MNPS, RVSM,
  RNP-4, RNP-10, B-RNAV and P-RNAV Special Use Airspace approvals"

My guess is this course is offered as a bundle of MNPS/RVSM/RNAV training programs to the operators.
For the operator to be certified to fly in MNPS airspace, they need to have a specific authorization from the regulating authority (in FAA they specifically need OpSpecB039) which in turn, requires specific training programs for the pilots. The same is valid about operation in RVSM,RNAV,etc.
There is no specific recurency training period; however, each approval certificate, for each specific operator, must include an approved 'initial and recurrent training program' which will specify the training frequency. At most, these periods must abide
by the operator's program for proficiency check and line checks.
8900.1 4.1.4 98(d)

NAT/MINIMUM NAVIGATION PERFORMANCE SPECIFICATIONS (MNPS) AIRSPACE.

Each  aircraft is suitably equipped and capable of meeting the MNPS standards.
The operator has established operating procedures that
  ensure that MNPS standards are met.
The flightcrews are trained and capable of operating to MNPS requirements.

[...]
All NAT/MNPS approvals are granted by issuing OpSpec paragraph B039,

ICAO NAT Doc 007 § 1.2.1 (I'm really not an FAA guy, somebody might find the Part 135 / 91 equivalent)

All flights within NAT MNPS Airspace must have the approval of either
  the State of Registry of the aircraft, or the State of the
  Operator[...] These aspects include: the navigation equipment used,
  together with its installation and maintenance procedures; plus the
  crew navigation procedures employed and the crew training
  requirements.
The ICAO doc goes on to further detail what that training should include (1.3.8 - > 1.3.12), but does not specify a training frequency or the need for recurrent training.

Appendix G to Part 91: Operations in Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) Airspace
Section 3 Operator Authorization

(b)An applicant for authorization to operate within RVSM airspace
  shall apply in a form and manner prescribed by the Administrator. The
  application must include the following:
(2) For an applicant who operates under part 121 or 135 of this chapter or under subpart K of this part, initial and recurring pilot
  training requirements.

AMC1 SPA.RVSM.105 RVSM operational approval

(c) Training programmes, operating practices and procedures :
      The operator should submit training syllabi for initial and recurrent training  programmes together with other relevant material.


text:
Are pressurized passenger aircraft usually completely airtight?
Various sources on the internet indicate that the passenger cabins on pressurised airplanes are not 100% airtight. I'm not talking about ventilation/pressure valves/cabin pressurisation system, but about unintentional leakages due to various imperfections in the construction.
Is that true? If yes, what would be the "usual" value for some commonly used airplane in easy to understand units?
I'm trying to imagine if the (possible) unintended leakage might cause any trouble in flight, if the pressurization system failed.

Air is always leaking through the cabin pressurization system, it is designed to. If the cabin pressurization system fails, the vent valves close and the captain starts to descend. Other sources of leakage (unless you blow out a window) should not depressurize the aircraft before it gets to a safe altitude.

AT236 flew for 5 minutes with no engines before masks deployed.  Not sure how to calculate the leak rate from that figure.

Possible duplicate of Is constant air pressure maintained inside the fuselage?

@BowlOfRed Masks typically deploy at a cabin altitude around 10,000 ft, don't they? If normal cabin altitude is maintained at 8,000 ft, that's a loss of 2,000 ft worth of pressure in five minutes, or a change of cabin altitude of +400 ft/min, which is in line with Therac's figures.

No, the are not even nearly airtight, and leak air quickly on their own.
Air pressure is maintained with bleed air or a powered pump. FAA has a thorough, well-illustrated guide to the systems involved.
As for why they're not built completely airtight, aircraft are mostly riveted and glued, not welded, so their structure is inherently not solid. You'd need to use sealants throughout the structure, install and maintain seals on every opening, and compartmentalize a few systems that need outside air by design.
That's extra weight and maintenance, which doesn't have to be there, as cargo doesn't need pressure and humans need fresh airflow. The minimum rate is ~1.6 L/s/pax for survival and ~8 L/s/pax for comfort. More flow means more O2, giving more consciousness time if decompression happens (breathing low ppO2 greatly accelerates the onset of hypoxia), less CO2 (affecting cognitive ability and comfort), and less humidity, so that less odor is perceived and less water accumulates in the insulation.
With outflow valves closed, airliners normally lose about 400 feet (~5%) of their pressure difference per minute when new, this varies per airframe. The permitted limit is typically 750 FPM. High-flying aircraft like A380, A350, 787 are built with considerably lower leak rates, a safety margin that allows them to get certified above FL400 by providing more time to get to 10k ft in emergency.
As aircraft age, their leak rate can double and more, usually being close to the limit for an average airliner. A common offender is window frames rattling themselves a bit of clearance. When tested and found to exceed the limits, maintenance is required to bring the leak rate down. So even the current level of airtightness takes effort to maintain.

Great analysis! "With outflow valves closed, airliners normally lose about 400 feet (~5%) of their pressure difference per minute when new." -> This number is what I've been looking for. That sounds like a lot to me. Is there any source (other than your answer) I can quote for this?

@MichalBryxí It seems not. The 400 fpm number (±50%) just came through the grapevine. You could find the 750 fpm number in test procedures. Leakage is not generally given top attention, just a sign of age, the critical part is the packs.

In the old days, one could easily identify the outflow valve by the heavy brown streaking of smoking byproducts (tar and nicotine) running aft from the valve.


text:
Will leaving the ducting on the propellers attached to a DIY aircraft give it more thrust?
I'm not sure if its the right place, I have a problem with a flying thingy, and you like flying thingies, don't you?
I will be trying to add some means of propulsion to my friend's styrofoam plane (3ft wingspan, 2-3ft length). I have quite a few computer fans lying around, so I decided to add four (two on each side of the hull) 1W, 2x2 inch fans. Now you don't see a lot of propeller planes with their propellers ducted (well, maybe except for jet engines, but they are a different animal), do you? Now, I heard that ducting equals more efficiency and thrust.
So should I snip the ducting off or let it stay on? I can provide more information if you need it.

I have a doubt you are going to get any measurable thrust from 4 1W computer fans, shroud or not.

Ducting does improve efficiency, but this is most notably observed in high performance applications. There is no way ducting a computer fan will make up for the ducts weight. Especially if you are thinking about using the case the fans came in as your duct.

@RonBeyer What if I stick a rotor (the spinning thing) across the motots shaft, using the motr to make it spin?

@RonBeyer: I wouldn't be so sure.

Add a picture. Those fans can be rather heavy and draw a lot of current.

The brushless motor is optimized for low EMI, not for low weight.

I did some experiments in the past on the thrust from a pc fan (by simply hanging it above a digital kitchen scale). It's very little, even with the duct attatched. Why not just spend a few bucks (<$1 per propeller) on cheap eBay parts?


text:
What defines a cycle on a jet engine?
Is there a legal definition of a "cycle" on a jet engine?
We must log the cycles, and some maintenance is determined by cycles.  From my understanding, this is partially because of the thermal dynamics of an engine cooling and then reheating, and partially because full takeoff power is used.
The "usual" time that you log a cycle is when an engine is started and the aircraft then takes off (using full rated takeoff power), but what about unusual situations like:

Engine shutdown and restarted in flight
Engine started, aircraft takes off, and then returns for a low pass or a touch and go:  Would this be two cycles (does it depend on the amount of power used during the touch and go?)?
Engine started and then shut down without a flight

Not "legal definition", but this might help

Im tempted to say the engine start/shutdown without flight isnt a cycle since we routinely did this when delayed but never logged it anywhere. Unless ACARS was taking care of that Im not sure MX would be able to track that.

@SSumner: No, that's altogether different meaning of a cycle.

@JanHudec - hmmm, didn't know that

Different engine manufacturers will probably have different definitions of a cycle.  If you are asking for the meaning in the context of maintenance tracking, then you will definitely want to use the OEM's definition of a cycle.

According to the FAA in AC33.70-1:

(b) The applicant should validate and maintain the accuracy of the
  engine flight cycle over the life of the design. The extent of the
  validation depends on the approach taken in the development of the
  engine flight cycle. For example, a conservative flight cycle where
  all the variables are placed at the most life damaging value would
  require minimum validation. A flight cycle that attempts to accurately
  represent the actual flight profile, but is inherently less
  conservative, would require more extensive validation. Applicants may
  apply further refinements to the engine flight cycle when significant
  field operational data is obtained.

A cycle is a start to a shutdown.  Lets say there is a flight that is loaded with pax, bags, and fuel.  They push back and start both engines since the weather is good and their at an outstation.  As they taxi to the departure runway, BAM, ground calls up saying there is a groundstop for the hub and its going to be about 30 minutes.  The flight pulls into some empty ramps space, and shuts down both engines.  Groundstop lifts, both engines started again, and the flight departs.  After landing, pulling into the gate, and shutting down the engines, we can say that for this flight, each engine went through two cycles.  ALL of this info is logged and maintenance can access it.  With some of the newer engines and higher service packages, OEM

Hi, thanks for the answer.  Do you have a reference for this definition?  Like I asked, I am looking for the regulation (or other official source) which covers this.  I was always told that you had to takeoff for it to be a cycle too.

I don't have anything official, unfortunately, as its from my experiences.  However, I believe parts 33 and 43 might yield some answers.  I'll dig into it when I get home.

For what it's worth, the operators I've flown for logged cycle exactly as h54 describes.  I have nothing official either.  Maybe try calling or emailing your local FSDO (if in US).

I am an Aviation Maintenance student.  The way my instructor explained it to me was: any time that you exceed 70% RPM, you have just run an engine cycle.  It is more about acknowledging that the engines reached a certain temperature and was exposed to stresses that maintenance should know about.  Different engine manufacturers will probably have different definitions of a cycle.

Based on which RPM? Should I count another cycle every time I bring the engine up above 70% in a flight? Or only after a shutdown-restart?

The cycle is one takeoff and landing , meaning engine start,climb,cruise,landing and shutdown.
As far as the engine is started in ground and shutdown it is not considered as a cycle since no Aerodynamic forces/Loads are acting e.g. when engine is tested in Test cell it is not considered as a cycle.
In the case of IFSD it will be considered as a cycle as the engine went through most of the phases of a cycle.

Engine flight cycle. The flight profile or combination of profiles on which the
  approved life is based.

To establish a safe life, the applicant needs to establish an appropriate flight
  profile (or combination of profiles) and consider the expected range of ambient conditions and
  operational variations to determine the service environment. The engine flight cycles should
  include the various flight segments that describe a complete flight (or flights). For example, for
  fixed wing aircraft applications this may include segments such as start, idle, taxi, takeoff, climb,
  cruise, approach, landing, thrust reverse and shutdown.

AC No: AC 33.70-1

Refer to the engine manufacture they have received approval from the FAA for their engines. On a TFE731 one engine cycle is one take off and landing which can be found in the LMM.


text:
Why is a urine test performed during pilot medical examinations?
I've wondered this for a long time (every six months while getting my latest first class medical), but what are the doctors checking for when they perform the urine test?
Maybe Drugs?  Medical conditions (which ones)?  Both?  Other things?

Diabetes I think.

It's for diabetes and kidney disease. You can read the AME guidance here:

Item 57. Urine Test
  Glycosuria or proteinuria is cause for deferral of medical
  certificate issuance until additional studies determine the status of
  the endocrine and/or urinary systems. If the glycosuria has been
  determined not to be due to carbohydrate intolerance, the Examiner may
  issue the certificate. Trace or 1+ proteinuria in the absence of a
  history of renal disease is not cause for denial.

Glycosuria is an indication of diabetes, and proteinuria is an indication of kidney disease (among dozens of other things, if Wikipedia is to be believed). And the AME can do other tests too, if he thinks they're necessary:

The Examiner may request additional urinary tests when they are
  indicated by history or examination.

The regulatory reference (per the AME guide) is 14 CFR 67.113 for a first-class medical, but exactly the same regulation is there for second- and third-class too.


text:
What do professional pilots keep track of in their pilot log books?
Professional pilot logbooks (either paper or electronic) always seem to be more elaborate than those used by private pilots.
I am curious as to what a professional pilot finds important to track in their logbooks besides just total flight time in aircraft type.

This question seems quite broad. At least in the US, there are various 'types' of time that are defined by regulation and you need them for specific qualifications. But when it comes to getting a job, employers and insurers can add their own requirements that may be much more specific. If you can narrow down your question somehow that would be helpful.

@Pondlife hopefully my edit makes the question more specific.  Thanks for the feedback.

The experience required is simply flying hours on the type or configuration, and flying hours, for pilot logging purposes, is time from engine start to engine shutdown.  If you're flying an airplane with a Hobbs, which usually starts/stops using oil pressure, you can just use the Hobbs value.  If no Hobbs, record the engine start/stop time yourself and use that, or if you forgot to, just use the tachometer hours reading (which is closer to air time, or time airborne) and add a 10th.

Besides time in type or configuration, do commercial pilots keep track of time flying IFR / IMC, or Night hours, or for example, number/type of Instrument Approaches?

Yes, where it matters. In any pilot log book, there's a column for night, IFR, multi, sea, etc. Whatever is applicable you enter the same number as under P1/P2.  There is usually a "Remarks" box for bits of data beyond hours.  For something like flying approaches where it's necessary for currency, you wld notate "4 ILS inst approaches flown" or similar.  But for routine ops where the number of procedures is not material to anything, you don't have to. Normally you just jot down something short that summarizes the trip like Night CC Kxxx to Kxxx" or "stall practice", or something like that.


text:
Are same-era military aircraft cockpits designed to be familiar to transitioning pilots?
The wonderful SR-71 ha what looks to me an intimidating cockpit:

However, lots of planes of that era have ostensibly-similar cockpits to the layman, take this F-5 for instance:

I choose the F-5 as it was flying around the time the SR-71 was introduced, and thus potential SR-71 pilots may have been familiar with it. Would the cockpit designers have taken this into consideration? In general, are next-generation airplane cockpits designed to be familiar to pilots of current-generation aircraft?
Elements that may or may not be taken into consideration:

Placement and relative placement or grouping of instruments
Size and relative size of instruments
Lighting, colours
Calibration
Materials selection

I strongly suspect, but have no direct evidence to back it up, that there's a minimum set of instruments and controls needed to operate either aircraft safely. You're going to need basic flight instruments, engine instruments, fuel gauges, radios, etc., almost no matter which type you're in; and for example, a jet airplane needs more instruments than a piston for engine monitoring. Everything beyond that is just a choice on how to lay things out in the cramped space of a small airplane cockpit. I doubt many pilots, even low-hours GA pilots, wouldn't readily recognize the basic instruments.

Unless there is regulation enforcing certain aspects (e.g. as in the automotive sector), it is practicability would be the most probable cause leading to similar-ish cockpit designs.
Another reason would be convention, e.g. prior to the introduction of the side-stick, the center-stick was the way to do it.
Also, ergonomics is a very strong driver. During the landing approach, you wouldn't want to take your eyes far away from the windscreen to check altitude, speed and rate of sinking. Thus, these instruments are found in similar locations in most airplanes.


text:
What determines the "acceleration" and "thrust reduction" heights?
Thrust reduction height is the height at which automatic thrust reduction from takeoff thrust to climb thrust happens. And acceleration height is the height at which you start accelerating the plane from takeoff config to clean config.
But is the acceleration height always the same as the thrust reduction height, just sometimes, or will it depend on the company's SOP (standard operating procedure)?

These are operating procedures which can vary between airplanes and operators.

autotrust as a tag?? My god.. Why takeoff-segments tag was removed?

The Airbus reference Getting to Grips with Aircraft Performance provides a description  in section 4.1 Takeoff Flight Path.
They describe the takeoff flight path as four segments as shown in the following figure;

They provide the following discussion:

So, below 400 feet, the speed must be maintained constant to a minimum
of V2. Above 400 feet, the aircraft must fulfill a minimum
climb gradient, which can be transformed into an acceleration
capability in level flight. Therefore, the regulatory minimum
acceleration height is fixed to 400 feet above the takeoff surface.
Nevertheless, during the acceleration segment, obstacle clearance must
be ensured at any moment. Therefore, the operational minimum
acceleration height is equal to or greater than 400 feet (Figure C16).

The Maximum Acceleration Height is described as follows:

JAR/FAR 25.111   (c)(3) At each point along the takeoff flight path,
starting at the point at which the aeroplane reaches 400 ft above the
takeoff surface, the available gradient of climb may not be less than:
• 1.2% for a two-engined airplane
• 1.7% for a four-engined airplane
The Maximum Takeoff Thrust (TOGA) is certified for use for a maximum
of 10 minutes, in case of an engine failure at takeoff, and for a
maximum of 5 minutes with all engines operating.   The Maximum
Continuous Thrust (MCT), which is not time-limited, can only be
selected once the enroute configuration is achieved (i.e. when the
aircraft is in clean configuration at green dot speed).   As a result,
the enroute configuration (end of the third segment) must be achieved
within a maximum of 10 minutes after takeoff, thus enabling the
determination of a maximum acceleration height (Figure C16).

The Acceleration phase ends when the aircraft reaches green dot speed in a clean configuration.  Based on the requirement to maintain a minimum climb gradient during this phase, the Maximum Acceleration Height will be above the Minimum Acceleration Height.
The biggest caveat in the definition is that heights and climb gradients must comply with adequate obstacle clearances.

Good explanation, but for completeness I would like to comment that the referenced graphic illustrates the one engine out situation, while the original question makes reference to the all-engine terms (main difference: thrust reduction is only achieved once clean configuration has been attained in your example).


text:
List of all FIR and their authorities
Wikipedia has this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_information_region containing a table of all FIR (with ICAO codes) and their respective authority countries.
Is there any place where I can download an updated list like this one as a CSV file (or XML)?
I need to do some automatic calculation of overflight costs. For that I have a set of calculation formulas from IATA, but they are based on authority country, and my input is based on the FIR, that the actual flight is passing through. Therefore I need some way to find the authority country for each specific FIR.
I would prefer somehow to be able to automatically download a fresh list once in a while. I'm not yet sure, how often these data might change.

Welcome to aviation.SE! You might get a better answer if you can tell us what you need the data for and how reliable you need it to be. For example, the Wikipedia page you linked to has 310 FIRs, but ICAO's own list has 405. Also, do you need updates when the list changes? As a general comment, the best way to get high-quality and up-to-date aviation data is usually to pay for it.

Valid point @Pondlife, I've updated my OP.

Such data is not freely available

@J.Hougaard Please read my own answer to the OP. I believe it is freely available.

Thank you for coming back and answering your own question when you found the answer. Unfortunately resource location questions are specifically off-topic here

Just read the scope defining this exchange area. I would argue, that my question falls into the category "Aviation Regulations".

@CarstenGehling "Is there any place where I can download an updated list like this one as a CSV file (or XML)?" is a resource request. What I linked to includes what is off topic, and includes resource location with the specific example " Where can I get a feed of flight-related data?". Again, please stick around, it's good to have new users, but this particular question is specifically off topic.

@Jamiec Fair enough :-) Should I delete the OP then?

@CarstenGehling no need, unless you really want to

Should be on-topic, IMO.

For posterity, I found what I needed here: https://www.icao.int/safety/istars/pages/api-data-service.aspx
They currently have 58 datasets. The one satisfying my needs is "Flight Information Regions - Names".
When registering for an API key, I am allowed to do 100 requests for free each month. Downloading the entire list counts as 1 request. So the way I read it, I am complying with their EULA. If I'm wrong, please comment.

Highlight the table contents, then Copy, paste into Excel, select Save As, then Save A Type: CSV or XML.
You'll be asked to confirm you want that vs the standard Excel format.

Good solution but what if wikipedia is not updated?

It's definitely outdated. e.g. Sondrestrom FIR is now called Nuuk FIR.